Sir, – Much as I would like to be in a position to share the views expressed by Dr Ray Murphy, I must reluctantly conclude that Prof Tonra’s views are based on a more realistic analysis of the current geopolitical situation, and Ireland’s ability to influence or navigate it (“Should Ireland revisit its neutrality? Prof Ben Tonra and Dr Raymond Murphy debate”, Opinion & Analysis, February 4th). The contempt shown for the UN charter by two of the Security Council’s permanent members in recent conflicts, Russia directly in Ukraine, and the US indirectly by its absolute support for Israel in Gaza, has removed, in this observer’s eyes, any credibility which that body may in the past have possessed. President Trump’s stated intention to take control of Gaza confirm me in that assessment. I say that with some regret, as someone who has spent a not inconsiderable portion of his military service with the United Nations, attempting to uphold that charter.
As Prof Tonra has pointed out, Ireland is not politically neutral. Indeed the Government has explicitly stated its support for Ukraine’s struggle to defend itself. Being “militarily neutral” amounts to no more than non-membership of the relevant regional alliance, on which we depend, Nato. However we have an air defence agreement with the UK, and rely on UK, France, and almost certainly the US to protect infrastructure in our economic zone. While being dependent on Nato for our security, some of our more prominent leaders feel free to criticise that organisation’s ramping up of its defence efforts.
At the same time, we make no realistic effort to boost our own defence capability.
A continuation of such policy, while adopting a morally superior tone, is unlikely to go down well with our EU partners, to whom defence expenditure is not so much an obscenity as a very regrettable necessity.
Michael McDowell: Beware the phoney, flaccid consensus on events such as Storm Éowyn or Covid
After an ancestry DNA test, I discovered my 80-year-old brother has a daughter. Can I let my other siblings know?
Gordon D’Arcy: How momentum changed, Ireland’s need for improvement and my key takeaways from Six Nations opener
Orla Tinsley: ‘I’m not a doctor, but ...’ the man began
Ireland does not need to join Nato. It does, however, need to ramp up defence expenditure to level three of the Commission on the Defence Forces Report, and lend its support to efforts to maximise European Strategic Autonomy. Our leaders should get on with that task and resist the urge to moralise. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL O’DWYER,
Clogheen,
Cork.
Sir, – Your interesting pro- and anti-neutrality pieces lack historical context. They also overlook a key question for the future, that is the defence implications of Irish unity. Ben Tonra rightly points out that this State remains absolutely incapable of defence from external aggression. The seas around Ireland, the undersea cables which connect her to the world, and Irish airspace, will continue to be protected solely by Nato powers above, on and beneath the waves. In wartime this would be so whether or not the Irish State concurred. Ireland would have no choice but to quietly to co-operate, just as she did between 1939 and 1945 in breach of absolute neutrality.
As Ray Murphy demonstrates, Irish discourse on neutrality remains characterised by a holier than thou approach at odds with geopolitical reality and with our EU obligations. Prating about the moral superiority of neutrality also ignores historic reality. Most European states remained neutral in 1939; most were subsequently ruthlessly overwhelmed by Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939/40. In the late 1930s, militant republicanism sought alliance with Nazi Germany, the world’s vilest regime, because in Britain they had a shared enemy. The statue in Fairview of Sean Russell, the embodiment of that alliance, remains a sacred site of pilgrimage for Mary Lou McDonald and Sinn Féin. Many on the left still valorise Spanish Civil War hero Frank Ryan, and explain away his willingness while in Germany from 1940 to 1944 to help the Nazis. As late as 1996, the State’s cultural academy Aosdána, conferred its highest honour upon Francis Stuart, a man who had chosen to go to live in Berlin in 1939, where he facilitated IRA/German links, and contributed to the Nazi war effort through his propaganda broadcasts.
In discussion of future Irish unity, no Dublin government has publicly addressed the significance of Ireland’s defencelessness against external aggression (although cabinet ministers Seán MacBride in 1949/50, and Charles Haughey in 1969, mentioned it in private to the Americans and British). It is all very well to evoke visions of a new, progressive united Ireland, where different traditions will be accommodated, minority rights respected and enhanced, the full economic and social benefits of EU membership restored to the entire island, and so on. What about the right not only to be defended, but to have a say and participate in that defence?
The reality is that Nato would continue to defend the entire island by sea and air. But the alliance will do so entirely on its own terms, in the framing of which a neutral, unpartitioned, defenceless united Ireland would have absolutely no say. Why should the people of Northern Ireland choose to step out from under the defence umbrella provided by the United Kingdom and the Nato alliance? – Yours, etc,
EUNAN O’HALPIN, MRIA, FTCD
Professor Emeritus of Contemporary Irish History
Trinity Centre for Contemporary
Irish History,
Trinity College Dublin,
Dublin 2.
Sir, – In your welcome debate on neutrality, unfortunately the No argument was painfully weak, in my opinion, on the most obvious issue. It argued worryingly in terms of how our “neutrality” is important in ways that our international European partners might not understand, due to our history and perspective. Do other European nations not have their histories and contexts, laced with considerable tragedy and conflict?
Yet they still invest to defend their citizens, Europe, and by extent us. We are indeed unique in this regard, and it’s not something to be proud of.
Can we climb down off our moral high horse and take a look at ourselves? The EU is a Union, a partnership, and that means that we all must contribute, in all areas of concern to the Union and the continent as a whole for the safety and security of its citizens, as is strikingly evident with conflicts raging on the Union’s very frontiers.
We have freeloaded in terms of defence for decades and it is evident that our European compatriots have woken up to our negligence. Our attitude in this sphere continues to be a national embarrassment, sadly, and belittles the fine calibre of people who swear to defend the State in our Defence Forces, as we refuse to give them the support to do so, and wrap vague concepts into unworkable and underfunded plans.
We then boast of our commitment to Europe, which we refuse to invest in defending. We can not hide behind our declining soft power status any longer, despite the great work of our fine diplomats. Geography shields us no longer, we are Europe’s Achilles heel in terms of defence, a gaping hole on its western border.
Creating the ability to defend your country is not militarism, it is a basic necessity for any credible nation, particularly in an increasingly uncertain world. And if we do still need to be neutral, then do what Finland and Sweden did for decades, and Switzerland continues to do, stand on our own to feet and fund a credible land, sea and air defence policy. In other words, grow up. – Yours, etc,
RUAIRI KAVANAGH,
Crumlin,
Dublin 12.
Sir, – Although both Prof Tonra and Dr Murphy offer perspectives on neutrality as a foreign policy stance, neither explains how neutrality has systematically served as a cover for degrading our basic defensive capabilities.
Ireland currently has just one operational naval vessel, without functioning weapons. We have no jet aircraft for monitoring our airspace or responding to aviation emergencies. This goes far beyond maintaining military neutrality; it represents an abdication of fundamental state responsibilities. We cannot effectively police our waters, protect our critical infrastructure, or conduct effective maritime search and rescue operations without relying on our neighbours.
The debate around neutrality should not obscure the fact that even a neutral nation requires basic defensive capabilities to fulfil its obligations to its citizens and the international community. Neutrality demands self-sufficiency in territorial policing and defence.
Our current situation does not reflect a high-minded moral policy, but decades of neglect masked by invoking neutrality. We must separate the legitimate debate about military alliances from the more fundamental question of if we choose to maintain even a basic defence of the State. – Yours, etc,
MARK TWOMEY,
Watergrasshill,
Cork.
Trump’s plan for Gaza
Sir, – What really happened at the Trump-Netanyahu meeting is that the US gave unconditional support to Israel. The Disneyland-in-Gaza stuff was just classic deflection.
Your headline should have read “Trump gives carte blanche to Nethanyahu”, with a smaller sub-headline reading “Also says outrageous things”.
Mr Trump has many years of practice in distracting and deceiving. Please don’t fall for him again this time around. – Yours, etc,
JOHN GRENHAM,
Dublin 9.
Sir, – I am writing to express my deep concern and disappointment regarding President Trump’s latest proposal to address the crisis in Gaza. His suggestion that Palestinians should relocate to Egypt and Jordan is not only impractical but also dismissive of their right to self-determination and their deep connection to their homeland. If the Mr Trump is genuinely concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people, why does he not extend an invitation for them to come to America? Such a gesture would demonstrate true leadership and compassion, offering refuge to those who have suffered immensely due to the ongoing conflict.
Instead of proposing solutions that further displace and destabilise, the international community – and particularly the United States – should focus on fostering peace, rebuilding Gaza, and addressing the root causes of the conflict. A just and lasting resolution must prioritise the dignity, rights, and aspirations of both Palestinians and Israelis. – Yours, etc,
PETER MALBASHA,
Booterstown,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Can it only be a matter of time until Donald Trump suggests the relocation of the people of Co Clare to Limerick so that he can realise the full real-estate opportunity this coastal county has to offer? Oval Office, March 17th? – Yours, etc,
RORY E MacFLYNN,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – So it seems the world will have to play this bizarre “Game of Trump” for four years whether it is a crazy “Riviera” proposal for Gaza or phoney tariff wars to achieve his America First project.
Roll on 2029. – Yours, etc,
MIKE MORAN,
Dublin 3.
Sir, – There is an admirable adage that a politician looks to the next election whereas a statesman looks to the next generation.
In our bizarre world, it appears that while statesmen or stateswoman may still look to future generations, the new American president is more concerned with the next real-estate opportunity. – Yours, etc,
FRANK WALSH,
Coolballow,
Co Wexford.
Sir, – What is the difference between Hamas wanting to eradicate the State of Israel, and Donald Trump wanting to eliminate the State of Palestine?
We would like to think that those who are rightly opposed to the first would oppose the second with identical arguments. – Yours, etc,
T GERARD BENNETT,
Bunbrosna,
Co Westmeath.
Sir, – Giving everyone in Gaza a million dollars to relocate would cost $2.3 trillion, exactly what the United States spent on the war in Afghanistan. – Yours, etc,
Dr JOHN DOHERTY,
Gaoth Dobhair,
Co Dhún na nGall.
Terms of endearment
Sir, – Niamh O’Reilly laments the rapid passing of time, because her eight year old has taken to calling her “Mum” instead of “Mammy” (People, February 5th).
If she thinks that’s bad, just wait until they start calling her “Niamh”. – Yours, etc,
LIAM GAVIN,
Rush,
Co Dublin.
The price of a stamp
Sir, – The day is fast approaching when a tenner will just about cover the combined price of a pint and a domestic postage stamp. I think Diageo and An Post are pushing the envelope to the nth degree. – Yours, etc,
PAUL DELANEY,
Dalkey,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – It would appear that the price of stamps will keep increasing until we start buying more of them. – Yours, etc,
JOHN O’CONNELL,
Letterkenny,
Co Donegal.
Speaking rights and the Dáil
Sir, – Can someone please point out the Road to Damascus on a map of Tipperary? – Yours, etc,
KENNETH B ROBINSON,
Grenagh,
Co Cork.
How was it for you?
Sir, - It would appear that one cannot perform a simple online transaction without the ubiquitous email thereafter enquiring how it all went and an invitation to submit a review. It is quite exasperating. Incidentally, if anyone wishes to critique this comment, you know what to do. – Yours, etc,
FRANK J BYRNE,
Dublin 9.
